How do I choose between different repo-level agents for code changes, test execution, and approval handling?

A good way to choose is to map each repo-level agent to the kind of risk and feedback loop you want.

1) For code changes

Use an agent when you want it to:

• make edits across multiple files,
• follow existing project conventions,
• implement a well-scoped task,
• and produce a diff you can review.

Choose the agent that is best at:

• local correctness: can it update code without breaking nearby logic?
• repo awareness: does it understand project structure and patterns?
• change size: is it better for small surgical edits or larger refactors?

Rule of thumb:

• Small, explicit changes: use the most direct code-editing agent.
• Broader refactors: use the agent with stronger planning and multi-file coordination.

2) For test execution

Use a test-running agent when you need:

• verification after changes,
• iterative debugging,
• coverage of unit/integration tests,
• or automated feedback on failures.

Choose based on:

• speed: fast feedback for tight iteration loops,
• coverage: can it run the right subset of tests,
• diagnostic quality: does it surface useful failure output,
• environment fit: does it know how to run tests in this repo.

Rule of thumb:

• If you’re still editing frequently, prefer the fastest relevant test agent.
• If you’re near completion, use the more complete test suite agent.

3) For approval handling

Use an approval-aware agent when the workflow includes:

• review gates,
• human sign-off,
• security or compliance checks,
• or controlled merge/release steps.

Choose based on:

• policy enforcement: does it stop on required approvals?
• handoff clarity: does it clearly show what needs review?
• auditability: can it explain what changed and why?
• automation level: does it only request approval, or also route/track it?

Rule of thumb:

• If approvals are required before merge/deploy, use the agent that explicitly manages approvals and review state.
• If approval is informal, a normal code agent plus a clear summary may be enough.

Practical selection guide

Ask yourself:

1. Am I changing code?
   → Use a code-change agent.

2. Do I need verification?
   → Use a test agent after or during edits.

3. Does this need human sign-off or policy gating?
   → Use an approval-handling agent.

Common workflow

A typical sequence is:

1. Code-change agent makes the edits.
2. Test agent runs targeted tests.
3. Approval-handling agent packages the result for review and gates merge/deploy.

If you’re deciding between multiple agents

Compare them on:

• scope they can handle,
• quality of diffs,
• test execution reliability,
• how they report failures,
• and how they integrate with your approval process.

If you want, I can help you build a simple decision matrix for the specific agents in your repo.